On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:07:27PM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:47:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:35:54PM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 07:58:13PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > From: Paul Chaignon <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > [ Upstream commit b8fff748521c7178b9a7d32b5a34a81cec8396f3 ]
> > > >
> > > > Commit 26101f5ab6bd ("bpf: Add source ip in "struct bpf_tunnel_key"")
> > > > added support for getting and setting the outer source IP of encapsulated
> > > > packets via the bpf_skb_{get,set}_tunnel_key BPF helper. This change
> > > > allows BPF programs to set any IP address as the source, including for
> > > > example the IP address of a container running on the same host.
> > > >
> > > > In that last case, however, the encapsulated packets are dropped when
> > > > looking up the route because the source IP address isn't assigned to any
> > > > interface on the host. To avoid this, we need to set the
> > > > FLOWI_FLAG_ANYSRC flag.
> > >
> > > This fix will also require upstream commits 861396ac0b47 ("geneve: Use
> > > ip_tunnel_key flow flags in route lookups") and 7e2fb8bc7ef6 ("vxlan:
> > > Use ip_tunnel_key flow flags in route lookups") to have the intended
> > > effect. In short, these two commits "consume" the new field introduced
> > > in 451ef36bd229 ("ip_tunnels: Add new flow flags field to
> > > ip_tunnel_key") and populated in the present commit.
> >
> > Ick. Is it better to just drop this commit instead? Or is it ok to
> > also backport those 2 patches to 5.19.y?
>
> It should be okay to backport those additional 2 patches to 5.19.y.
Thanks, both queued up now.
greg k-h
